tanada vs angara digest

Download Tanada vs Angara Digest

Post on 14-Apr-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

    1/4

    Tanada vs Angara, 272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997

    Facts : This is a petition seeking to nullify the

    Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization

    (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the

    concurrence of herein respondents acting in their

    capacities as Senators via signing the said

    agreement.

    The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially

    its major trading partners, through the reduction of

    tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and

    industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities

    for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated

    with exporting and more investment in the country.

    These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the

    agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators,

    a free market espoused by WTO.

    Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO

    agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair

    Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative

    power. That the Filipino First policy of the

    Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign

    trading intervention.

    Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse

    of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

    jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its

    concurrence of the said WTO agreement.

    Held: In its Declaration of Principles and state

    policies, the Constitution adopts the generally

    accepted principles of international law as part of the

    law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,

    equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity ,

    with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, thecountry is bound by generally accepted principles of

    international law, which are considered automatically

    part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda

    international agreements must be performed in good

    faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but

    creates a legally binding obligation on the parties.

    Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in

    fact and reality be considered as absolute because it

    is a regulation of commercial relations among

    nations. Such as when Philippines joined the United

    Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty

    right under the concept of sovereignty as

    autolimitation. What Senate did was a valid exerciseof authority. As to determine whether such exercise

    is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of

    judicial inquiry and review. The act of signing the

    said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO

    allows withdrawal of membership should this be the

    political desire of a member. Also, it should not be

    viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO

    remains as the only viable structure for multilateral

    trading and the veritable forum for the development

    of international trade law. Its alternative is isolation,

    stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the

    people be allowed, through their duly elected

    officers, make their free choice.

    Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    Posted by matisa at 5:19 AM

    No comments:

    PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA,

    et.al v . HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, IN HISCAPACITY AS

    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

    et.al G.R. No. 187167, 16 July 2011,

    EN BANC(Carpio, J.)

    The conversion of internal waters into archipelagic

    waters will not risk the Philippines because an

    archipelagic State has sovereign power that extendsto the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines,

    regardless of their depth or distance from the coast.

    R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March

    2009 to comply with the terms of the United Nations

    Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which

    the Philippines ratified on February 27, 1984. Such

    compliance shortened one baseline, optimized the

    location of some base points around the Philippine

    archipelago and classified adjacent territories such

    as the Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the

    Scarborough Shoal as regimes of islands whose

    islands generate their own applicable maritime

    zones. Petitioners, in their capacities as citizens,taxpayers or legislators assail the constitutionality

    of R.A. 9522 with one of their arguments contending

    that the law unconstitutionally converts internal

    waters into archipelagic waters, thus subjecting

    these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes

    passage under UNCLOS III, including over flight.

    Petitioners have contended that these passage rights

    will violate the Constitution as it shall expose

    Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime

    pollution hazard.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not R.A. 9522 is unconstitutional for

    converting internal waters into archipelagic waters

    HELD:

    Petition

    DISMISSED.

    The Court finds R.A. 9522 constitutional and is

    consistent with the Philippines national interest.

    http://www.blogger.com/profile/15797670286427560393http://pil-matisa.blogspot.com/2008/06/tanada-vs-angara-272-scra-18-may-2-1997.htmlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15797670286427560393http://pil-matisa.blogspot.com/2008/06/tanada-vs-angara-272-scra-18-may-2-1997.html
  • 7/29/2019 Tanada vs Angara Digest

    2/4

    Aside from being a vital step in safeguarding the

    countrys maritime zones, the law also allows an

    internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth

    of the Philippines maritime zones and continental

    shelf. The Court also finds that the conversion of

    internal waters into archipelagic waters will not risk

    the Philippines as affirmed in the Article 49 of the

    UNCLOS III, an archipelagic State has sovereignpower that extends to the waters enclosed by the

    archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth or

    distance from the coast. It is further stated that the

    regime of archipelagic sealanes passage will not

    affect the status of its archipelagic waters or the

    exercise of sovereignty over waters and air space,

    bed and subsoil and the resources therein

    MEJOFF VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70

    BORIS MEJOFF, petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF

    PRISONS, respondent.

    1951 September 26

    FACTS

    This is a second petition for habeas corpus by Boris

    Mejoff, the first having been denied in a decision of

    this Court of July 30, 1949.

    "The petitioner Boris Mejoff is an alien of Russian

    descent who was brought to this country fromShanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese

    forces during the latter's regime in these Islands.

    Upon liberation he was arrested as a Japanese spy,

    by U. S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps.

    Thereafter the People's Court ordered his release.

    But the Deportation Board taking his case up, found

    that having no travel documents Mejoff was illegally

    in this country, and consequently referred the matter

    to the immigration authorities.

    After the corresponding investigation, the Board of

    Commissioners of Immigration on April 5, 1948,

    declared that Mejoff had entered the Philippines

    illegally in 1944, without inspection and admission bythe immigration officials at a designation port of

    entry and, therefore, it ordered that he be deported

    on the first available transportation to Russia.

    The petitioner was then under custody, he having

    been arrested on March 18, 1948.

    In October 1948 after repeated failures to ship this

    deportee abroad, the authorities removed him to

    Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa where he has been

    confined up to the present time, inasmuch as the

    Commissioner of Immigration believes it is for the

    best interests of the country to keep him under

    detention while arrangements for his departure are

    being made."

    Over two years having elapsed since the decision

    aforesaid was promulgated, the Government has not

    found ways and means of removing the petitioner

    out of the country, and none are in sight, although, it

    should be said in justice to the deportation

    authorities, it was through no fault of theirs that no

    ship or country would take the petitioner.

    RULING

    The protection against deprivation of liberty without

    due process of law and except for crimes committed

    against the laws of the land is not limited to

    Philippine citizens but extends to all residents,

    except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality.

    Moreover, by its Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 3) the

    Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles

    of international law as part of the law of Nation." And

    in a resolution entitled "Universal Declaration Of

    Human Rights" and approved by the General

    Assembly of the United Nations of which the

    Philippines is a member, at its plenary meeting on

    December 10, 1948, the right to life and liberty and

    all other fundamental rights as applied to all human

    beings were proclaimed.

    It was there resolved that "All human beings are born

    free and equal in degree and rights" (Art. 1); that

    "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set

    forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any

    kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,

    political or other opinion, nationality or social origin,

    property, birth, or other status" (Art. 2); that "Every

    one has the right to an effective remedy by the

    competent national tribunals for acts violating the

    fundamental rights granted him by the